SG16 meeting on 15 June
Sakae OKUBO
okubo at GITI.WASEDA.AC.JP
Sun Jun 18 22:27:52 EDT 2000
Mr. Holm and others,
In Osaka it was suggested during the discussion of TD-54a (Draft Annex
M.2, ISUP tunneling) that a new ReleaseCompleteReason is needed to
support tunnelling. The reason would indicate that the called endpoint
is dropping the call because it rejects tunnelling and the
tunnellingRequired flag was set in the Setup message.
My notes indicate that I was to look into whether this was needed in
H.225.0 v4. The existing reasons are:
ReleaseCompleteReason ::= CHOICE
{
noBandwidth NULL, -- bandwidth taken
away or ARQ denied
gatekeeperResources NULL, -- exhausted
unreachableDestination NULL, -- no transport path
to the destination
destinationRejection NULL, -- rejected at
destination
invalidRevision NULL,
noPermission NULL, -- called party's
gatekeeper rejects
unreachableGatekeeper NULL, -- terminal cannot
reach gatekeeper
for ARQ
gatewayResources NULL,
badFormatAddress NULL,
adaptiveBusy NULL, -- call is dropping
due to LAN crowding
inConf NULL, -- no address in
AlternativeAddress
undefinedReason NULL,
...,
facilityCallDeflection NULL, -- call was deflected
using a Facility
message
securityDenied NULL, -- incompatible
security settings
calledPartyNotRegistered NULL, -- used by gatekeeper
when endpoint has
-- preGrantedARQ to
bypass ARQ/ACF
callerNotRegistered NULL, -- used by gatekeeper
when endpoint has
-- preGrantedARQ to
bypass ARQ/ACF
newConnectionNeeded NULL, -- indicates that
the Setup was not
accepted on this
-- connection, but
that the Setup may
be accepted on
-- a new connection
nonStandardReason NonStandardParameter,
replaceWithConferenceInvite ConferenceIdentifier
-- call dropped due
to subsequent
-- invitation to a
conference
-- (see H.323 8.4.3.8)
}
So I'll ask ... is a new reason needed?
If so, Mr. Holm's draft contains an editor's note that suggests a reason
code of "tunnelRejected". Should I incorporate that value as a
ReleaseCompleteReason?
If so, what Q.931/Q.850 mapping should I add to Table 5/H.225.0 for this
reason? Some suggestions:
63 - Service or option not available, unspecified
88 - Incompatible destination
111 - Interworking, unspecified
Thanks,
Rich
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard K. Bowen Cisco Systems, Inc.
VoIP Session Protocols Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to
listserv at mailbag.intel.com
More information about the sg16-avd
mailing list